Hacker News Reader

Comment by wzdd | Hacker News Reader

This is a pedicab service. A cynic would assume that Pedal Me is mandating this (and thus putting their drivers at risk) because passengers are more nervous about taking a service where the driver wears a helmet and they do not.

View on HN

Exactly what I think as well.

This might lower risk for the customers because driver may take less risk without a helmet in some situation but the risk for driver is only increased.

This is optimizing for customers at the cost of drivers.

I don't see any supportive extensive research linked from them .

How is it optimizing for customers, when customers don’t wear helmets either?

Because the crashes are less likely when the driver is not wearing a helmet. This is sort of the point of the article.

Sorry I wasn't clear. How is it optimizing for customers at the cost of drivers, which is what the post I was replying to said?

While number of crashes are likely getting reduced, head injuries to drivers may increase or be fatal.

Because the drivers are not wearing helmets and therefore increasing the risk to themselves.

So why not do the reasonable thing and provide passengers with helmets, like they do with motorbike taxi?

Lice

It is a consideration, but there are solutions, like disposable caps. There are also sanitizing sprays. It wouldn't be the first time people share helmets.

Also, the idea is to offer an option. Not to make it mandatory unless legislation require it. If your passengers are more comfortable not wearing them, their choice.

It makes the activity look dangerous. I do perceive motorbike taxi as more dangerous then, say, car.

It should not be a reasonable basis for denying their employees right to wear PPE.

Who decided that was reasonable? I certainly did not.

You dont think its reasonable to offer passengers the option to wear a helmet?

I suppose it's also not reasonable to provide seatbelts to passengers as well as the driver of a taxi?

"You dont think its reasonable to offer passengers the option to wear a helmet?"

No. Which means it's not automatically "the reasonable thing", just an opinion.

Just because one person disagrees doesn't mean it isn't reasonable. I've met people who (claim to) believe the earth is flat, but surely no one would consider that belief "reasonable".

So I'm curious what the REASONING is behind your feeling that offering passengers the option to wear a helmet is unreasonable. Personally, I would AGREE that offering passengers on a pedicab the option of a pineapple would be unreasonable. There just isn't any practical correlation between pineapples and pedicabs. But helmets are different: there are large numbers of people who campaign vigorously to persuade others to wear helmets when on a bike; many places even have laws mandating helmets on bikes, at least for some ages. So it is a plausible thing for passengers to want. Given that, why would it be unreasonable to offer it?

> Given that, why would it be unreasonable to offer it?

I'd worry about lice.

The obvious solution is to require passengers to wear helmets, as well as the drivers. But this brings us to the core of the endless helmet debate, which is that lots of people are deeply repulsed by wearing a goofy ass helmet and getting nasty helmet hair while out on the town. And the data shows that if you require helmets, lots of people stop cycling — in this case, people would stop using bike taxis.

Correct, and publicly banning helmets is a publicity move (see: we’re talking about the company).

Those people aren't riding bikes 8-10 hours a day, 5-6 days a week. If they can't see the difference then maybe they're better off without a pedicab, I would be afraid to deal with customers who were that smooth brained.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com